About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
and all is coming at a time when the obama administration has cut the defense budget, projecting over the ten-year period by some $487 billion and if the obama sequestration were to become a reality that would be a trillion dollars over this period of time coming out of our defense budget, even -- even the secretary of defense, the obama secretary of defense said it would be devastating. he used the word devastating. if that were not enough the obama administration continues to force the military to spend greater proportions of its already depleted funds on a gene energy agenda to include the purchase of biofuels for operational use in construction of commercial biofuel refineries. now, you know, i fully support development and use of alternative fuels including klug biofuels but not at the expense of the military. the focus should be on the readiness of the navy, not on propping up the biofuels industry. i have to remind everyone, we've a bureaucracy called the department of energy. they're the ones supposed to be doing all this experimentation we talk about. the navy according to th
decade i see the debt run up under the bush administration is a comparable amount under the obama administration. this seems to me to be a legacy of an extraordinary amount of. [inaudible] and yet we have a lot of economic problems and now our sovereign debt is roughly around gdp and this is the point in which at least in europe, investors have begun questioning it so i am curious in what way future funding would be posed as a solution to problems that the past was not and how can it be financed? >> sorry, i don't buy the premise first of all. [applause] look, we had a stimulus bill, which was about $800 billion. that is a very small part of the debt we have and none of the results of an economic stimulus so where's this coming from? the rest of it is, we have a large amount of debt or a large amount of -- we ran a deficit even during the good years which people like myself don't think was a good idea. why? because we first wanted to give tax cuts to langsam individuals and have a couple of unfunded wars. that has nothing to do is pump grinding and then we had a collapse of revenu
administration, a roughly comparable amount under the obama administration. this 10 dribble seems seems to a leg say leg say -- and -- this is the point at which, at least in europe, investors have begun to question the capacity of the country to repay the debt. so i'm curious in what way future funding would be -- would be posted as a solution to problems that the pacifism past -- past pump fining was not and how can it be financed. >> i don't buy the premise, first of all. look, we had a stimulus bill which was about 800 billion. that a very small part of the debt we have. none of it was a result of the economic stimulus. so where is this coming from? the rest of it is we have large amount of debt that was -- a large opt -- we ran deficits even during good years, which even people like myself don't think is a good idea. why? because george bush wanted to give tax cuts to high income individuals and have a couple of unfunded wars. that has nothing to do with pump priming. the enwe had a collapse of revenue that took place after 2007, which is the result of a severe downturn and financial crisis
about things like that and in this era, when i look at the amount of time, particularly in the obama administration, if you look at senior officials go to asia throughout the region and they have meetings or others and also the discussion that tends to coordinate with china, there seems to be a lot of efforts try to coordinate. looking out the value of the in the dispute and said that they were shocked and surprised by the level of miscommunication and assessment and the dangers of that between china and japan. so raises the question of whether or not -- i agree with you. i know china wants respect. but whether or not what you are seeing is a strategic or taxable gain by china to use this potential mr. stutzman to look like the unstable part in some of this to help push up the own interest. and that worries me a little bit. >> it is not of domination will respect. it is about whether it will be static or where the agreement will be dynamic. and there is no way that nations are going to agree on what will be the interest. it becomes explosive. >> the issue really is china, india, comp
to the election every outlet came up with a short list of the cabinet for mitt romney come in for president obama. when you talk about setting up this agency council how do you guard against some sort of volatility in the national energy policy from the changing administration and the policies put in place by one administration carried over the success reforms. >> one person has to take the recommendations seriously and consider that this has merit as the president in the issues i had the the president gave significance and this could be very significant move by the administration is taken seriously by everybody in the government and that in itself was a tremendous incentive to coordination. >> there will also be volatility in a second term there will be changes that have been there for four years or ready to get out but also this isn't something that would be done instantaneously i don't think it would be done under our proposal until the end of the fourth quarter given times so that would be available to the administration i don't think it would be that big a problem although if you had the who
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5